Handyman

Man, a soldier is calling his government out on bullying--powerful stereotype jamming, there. Mr. House, I agree about the word "petty." I was simply indicating how Mr. Work's language made my assertion more than invective. My worry in general is that we tolerate and ignore the violence of present authorities, yet we express fear over violence of the powerless. Mr. Work has remained mired with the strawman that I actually want children to have guns, so such a fear may be valid. Mr. Master1, on the other hand, has provided a completely unambiguous example of this bigotry. And, Mr. House, about my assertions about Mr. Work: I purposefully ended my assertion with the word "perhaps," because I may well be wrong. However, it seems like an important suggestion. I suppose a more constructive comment might be: If you do not think that the state is malevolent, you should research (neo-)colonialism, incarceration, slavery, police brutality, labor practices, bigotry in the justice system, rape culture, etc. This is probably important, because you will probably either never experience these things directly, or you will not notice them sufficiently; and it may cause you to interpret the state as something other than a brutal psychopath. Mr. Ernie, all abusers are able to act cooperative with equals and submissive to superiors. It is part of how the violence remains hidden: We assume that it can be dealt with kindly, so our easy dismissal will be part of our grace.

Mr. House, I took "petty violence" to imply that the violence was somehow small. This seemed to make sense, since he said that he preferred the "petty violence" of bullies to the violence of victims using violence. Granted, it would be *relatively* minor if I actually meant that children shoot their bullies, instead of simply beating them up. To be clear: I don't propose giving all kids guns. (Frankly, I'm still surprised you weren't purposefully straw-manning me.) But martial arts, for instance, may be a better recourse for many younger victims--assuming, as always, that they can overcome their abusers. It may simply suffice to show children tactics of social resistance, as long as those tactics are used to exercise real power. (Although, when the veil of deceit is lifted, there usually actually is violence underneath.) If they can't directly win against their oppressors in battle, then there are no real solutions. (Though I will add that when power is equalized, their environment will be less hierarchical and thus less violent and more cooperative.) When I call you a liberal manager, it is not a semantic ploy: You are approaching the situation with an eye to manage it without being involved. You presume the (imaginary) role of a sideline policymaker with detached benevolence and political agency. (You "protect and serve.") You do so from a position where you have not experienced a relatively great deal of state violence, and it is unlikely that you ever will; so it will be more apparent to you that the state solves violence, rather than permitting or inflicting it. That is how you have been made to identify with the abusers. The bystander effect is indeed powerful. On the other hand, you suggest immediately how such an effect to exist whatsoever depends directly and significantly upon believing in the power of the bullies or the inevitability of their violence. And, the bystander effect is aided by depersonalizing the victim, which is made easier by victim-blaming. (We cease to identify with them because their suffering indicates moral failure: Karma bites.) Victim-blaming is also made likelier when one believes the world is fundamentally just. Thus, more victim-blaming (or other forms of denial) is to be seen in situations where there is more violence. Similarly, I don't actually think you're offering disagreement when you discuss the motives of authorities in schools and elsewhere. You correctly identify that authorities would be pleased if things suddenly turned around for the good. However, that is consistent with authorities claiming moral superiority for improvements in quality of life that they do not actually intend or desire. This should be obvious, given what you say about authorities' priorities: "Benevolent" policing is a lucrative career, directly proportional to one's jurisdiction. And, the further one gets from victims, the easier the bystander effect will be. Or, put differently: There is no more dispassionate of a bystander than a king. (Ironically, not only does power make one more of a bystander, but those who are natural bystanders--narcissists and psychopaths--will be drawn to power.) Cheers.

Your "gun control" arguments are blatant trolling. It is degrading that you call victims' suffering "petty" when it drives them to violent suicide. My point is that victims and their supporters simply must resist by whatever means are available to them. (I admit that it's growing repugnant to persuade a liberal whose overriding interests seem to be management and policy.) Bullying is not an individual affair, because the rest of the class must already be submissive to or aligned with the violence. It is residue of an environment thoroughly polluted with violence. Adult supervision may be occasionally benevolent, but the only force ensuring this is active care for victims through direct relationships. Authorities who set policies will always claim moral superiority for petty acts of benevolence, when their only motive (indeed, their only function) is to prevent resistance. You seem like you are either in college or salaried. You have already admitted that you have not been inflicted with inprisonment. You are not living in a neoliberal colony. And, most importantly, you approach this discussion with an eye to manage a crisis that you do not seem invested in whatsoever. Perhaps you have been made to identify with the abusers.

Mr. Work, I agree that much of abuse is psychological and economic. I was proposing physical resistance principally as a response to Mrs. Jewels' suggestion that victims learn to "act normal." My underriding suggestion is that the only response to abuse belongs to victims and their supporters, and that it will come through resistance. This resistance may include support or critical understanding, but abuse is based principally on coercion, no matter how cleverly disguised; so every degree of support is futile if it does not actually challenge the situation. As for "gang warfare": Abusers have already formed their "gangs." The potential violence of victims is not as horrifying as the present violence of abusers. When abusers' violence is met with sufficient resistance, abuse will no longer exist. I do not believe these topics are necessarily discrete; however, Mr. Brocktree has not been able to describe the connections particularly well. It is probably best that you move the discussion away from the political philosophy of the seventeenth century. (As an aside: Have you ever been to prison?)

Originally Posted By: Master1 And at this point, the burqa is very much a part of tradition. Eliminating rape would hardly cause certain Islamic sects to stop wearing the burqa. That is a fair point: I know nothing of Islamic culture. A reference to Western humility would have sufficed. And, it would be nice if those in power could be taught restraint: But, I am not hopeful. I agree that a victim should not provoke violence if they are at serious risk, but in that situation, I don't see any immediate recourse. However, technology gives would-be victims more of a chance to overcome physical force. And, would-be victims can band together, creating spaces where they are safe from assault. I just think it's brutally naive to believe that you can ever tell your assailant to just stop: They had simply better learn before you kill them.

Helping people fend for themselves is a perfectly reasonable solution. For instance, if women were armed, there would be drastically less rape. And, they wouldn't have to wear burquas to do so: Win-win, right? Granted, this solution may not work for children in uncaring schools, where they are passive recipients of violence with no power or recourse. (They might cause a school shooting!) It must suck living under powerful, unsympathetic leaders.

Originally Posted By: Jewels in Black It wasn't their fault for processing information differently, but if more effort would have gone into teaching them how to behave 'normally' than just punishing those who bullied them for being odd the bullying could have been lessened rather than policed. Why is nobody commenting on this? Is victim-blaming less important than getting out the vote? Don't worry; the liberal state will take care of the evil-doers.

Your poll seems to imply that one is either bullied or bully. Generally, abuse fosters abusers, no?

http://libcom.org/library/nihilist-communism-monsieur-dupont

Boo! The beginning to this was actually truly incredible: A depiction of actual trauma. And then the author reminds us that we're still in Blades of Avernum? Doesn't that defeat the point? I was happier not knowing some things: Was she my niece? Ok, fine. But my inner monologue wouldn't say that! And "Not that way" messages here were worse than irrelevant. I have to rate this [rating]Average[/rating], but the author was clearly toying with powerful stuff. Weirdly, it could have been improved by including less. (And, now that I think about it, I wonder why I couldn't have mustered the ability to mention the threat to someone. But, I certainly didn't wonder that at the time. Secondly, I guess I can appreciate some of the gratuitous information may have been intended to sabotage the mood to make the mood more poignant through its absence: But the only consequence is that it will be perceived a mistake, right?)

Is it? I guess I found the scenario to be purposefully understated: As if it was saying, "This is ok, but surely you can do better."

(Dropbox is free up to 2GB.)

Congratulations on finishing the first Warrior's Grove scenario. It's good to see that new designers show up occasionally. ;-)

I'm still interested, but busy. I'm about halfway through, though; and I've only got one truly difficult bit left. Good luck to all.

........I do not believe I am in charge of the WG contest. For what it's worth, feel free to add my scenario to the festivities.

What is a "hype thread"?

Well, truthfully, it is a good beginning. Unfortunately, me being on a Mac, I got an error thrown at me early on. (If the designer contacts me about it, my score may change, for what it matters.) I dunno. The ending I got was just WAY too abrupt. Things felt like they could have been interesting: Political intrigue, mystical stuff, magic, excitement. And, I may well be missing more of the prologue beyond my error. For now, it gets [rating]Substandard[/rating], though it'll undoubtedly get to Average or higher if the bugs get fixed.

Why are you remaking the same game for the third time, rather than doing something new? I mean, does it save time? (Can you salvage code from the first Avernum?) I would think that creating a new series (assuming the same engine) would be more rewarding.

Where's the link for the Mac version? Tyranicus' website(s) don't seem to have it.

And yet, you end up on "literary theory". Burn.

I was going to play this scenario, but it looks like the URL is down.

For one of those hot pockets, this scenario wasn't bad. I felt like there should have been some sort of hidden ending, but I like it more because there wasn't one. The combat felt just right, and the detachedness fit the scenario's size. [rating]Good[/rating].

Why do you have contests? Don't y'all have ongoing comprehensive scenario reviews?

Ok, I'll be more specific: Let's say there are 4 participants. Then, we will split scenario design into four "aspects": Maybe "plot," "writing," "aesthetics," "combat" or something. And, there will be four scenarios. Each participant will do the plot of one scenario, the writing of another, the aesthetics of a third, and combat of a fourth. And, no participant will work on more than one aspect of any scenario. To better illustrate, in this table below, A-D are the scenarios and 1-4 are the participants: Code: SCENARIO: | A | B | C | D |-----------+---+---+---+---+Plot | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |Writing | 2 | 3 | 4 | 1 |Aesthetics | 3 | 4 | 1 | 2 |Combat | 4 | 1 | 2 | 3 | (The numbers assigned to the participants will be random. And, we don't have to use Latin square; any counterbalancing will do.) And, the participants/judges will not know who is working on which parts.

So, most contests don't make sense: If you like making scenarios, competition shouldn't motivate you. On the other hand, a "contest" could be an interesting opportunity to try out some weird exercises in writing/design. My idea is, roughly: We should split scenario design into different "aspects." So, like: writing, plot, combat, aesthetics, whatever. Each participant will take on a different "aspect" for each scenario once. There are probably a number of reasons for and against doing things this way, but it at least seems interesting. I'm hesitant to outline the different "aspects" until I know how many people are participating. For instance, Ephesos, Lazarus and other folks from the Random Contest still seem to be around here, but it's not clear who else is. I'd be willing to participate, but then we'd need a way to organize things, and I'd prefer it if participants/judges would remain blind to who's working on what, so it'd be cool if someone uninclined towards designing/judging could volunteer to organize the shuffling of versions back and forth. EDIT: And while this should be obvious, these scenarios should all aim at being the same length/scope.